User talk:Natuur12

FYI: Diego Grez blocked 3 days + Diego Grez and Amitie 10g Interaction banned for 3 monthsEdit


FYI as involved admin, see my notice in AN.

This decision was taken in order to restore civility.

I have not seen reason to relock Amitie 10g, if you see it necessary not hesitate to do so.

Cheers, Alan (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Honestly I think that the block is a bit unfair since Amitie 10g didn't exactly gave a genuine timeline of the facts. The file I converted to a regular DR was deleted and not speedy kept as Amitie 10g claims. What is kept, that is a brand new upload. This one closed by you was only kept after the copyright problem was resolved. Honestly, what Amitie 10g did was far more disruptive. The way he communicates is offensive to the persons who read his comments treating the readers as idiots with all the bold text he uses to emphasis his points when there is no need to. The length and the lack of relevant content also make it impossible to react to them properly. This was already noted in previous discussions where it becomes awfully clear that Amitie 10g his more or less intimidating discussion style irritates people. Even after you placed the block of Amitie 10g keeps asking for special treatment because the DR's need to speedy speedy closed. There is absolutely no reason to speedy close those DR's. Yes, Diego should have stopped creating those DR's while there was a general discussion about them but from a legal perspective he is correct and a warning that creating more DR's until there is established a consensus would have resolved this as well. For the interaction ban, I do believe that there needs to be some sort of informal consensus or at least several warnings before such an extreme measurement is taken.
To point out a couple of DR's. This one was rightfully reopened because it is not elegible for a non admin closure only to be kept after the non-free element is removed. This one was also fixed before being kept. It seems that the files do seem to be copyright violations if they are not fixed. Actually, even after they are fixed the are copyright violations since the license has been terminated according to section 7.
I do believe that a longer block for Amitie 10g seems to be appropriate because of his problematic MO in discussions which irritates several people and is not helpful if you want to be establish a consensus. Secondly he framed an editor in a discussion about his behaviour when he could have reasonably suspected that one of the results of that discussion was a block. This is really unfair. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear Natuur12, our application is crowned with success. Once again thanks you for your for your approach, logistics and all your nice words. Friendly, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :). Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Jacqueline Comerre-Paton - Mistletoe.jpgEdit

Why did you delete this file? It is PD in the US and the corrent template was added. --Jane023 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there was no evidence that this file is in the public domain in it's source country. Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! Why not just because it was published in the US before 1923? This should trump source country (also source country is not clear). --Jane023 (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't since the source country is the country where the "work" as been published for the first time. It doesn't matter if it is published elswhere unless it happened within 30 days of the original publication. The caption suggest that this could very well be France or at least the photograph which this painting is based on is from France making the painting a derivative work. Even if we manage to find evidence that the first publication was in the US we still need to find out if the photograph used to create this painting is PD. Natuur12 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
But the pages of a book published in the US before 1923 are PD, regardless of what the page in the book depicts. --Jane023 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
PD in the US but not in the source country and Commons policy requires that the work is both PD in the US and it's source country. Natuur12 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I still don't get why this is not PD in the source country. Let's pick France as source country for the painting. Then let's pick France as source country for the image of the painting. Then let's pick US as source country for the book, including the image of the painting. It is this third book version that is PD, as it is published in the US before 1923. Your previous comment looks a lot like the original comment on the deletion request, leading me to believe that I am not seeing something that is obvious to you. You will need to spell this out for me, sorry. As I upload lots of images of art, I think it is pretty important for me to get a grasp of this. --Jane023 (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jane023:. The problem is that Jacqueline Comerre-Paton only died in 1955, and she was French. So there is copyright on her works held by her estate in France that will continue to be active in Europe until the end of 2025.

Commons takes the broad view that, as far as possible, things that are posted here should be usable (eg on different wikis) worldwide. To facilitate that, the basic rule set by the community for inclusion on Commons is that a work needs to be free for use in the United States (where the servers are) and in the country where the copyright work was first published (amongst other things, that's where the estate may be particularly sensitive; also, many counties in the world (including the EU) operate on the basis of the "rule of the shorter term" -- so if the copyright has expired in the source country, that makes the image legal in much of the world).

The problem here is that there may still be live copyright in the underlying painting in its source country -- which would also touch any derivative works, since they would be derivative of something that would still be in copyright (in many countries around the world, even if not in the U.S.)

To resolve this, one needs to know if the underlying work was first published in any form outside the United States. If it was, then we're in trouble (though the image could still be uploaded to en-wiki, which having servers in the States and a strong U.S. audience argues that it can rely on U.S. 1st amendment protections, and therefore only needs to worry about U.S. copyright; whereas is typically guided by French copyrightlaws and exceptions, and by German/Austrian copyright laws and exceptions).

On the other hand, if you can establish that the first time the underlying painting was published in any form was in the United States, then it should be free to use in most of the world. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful (and quick!) response. I was under the impression that works created before copyright law went into effect are PD. Is this not the case? As far as I can tell, the original book was published in both the US (NYC) and the UK (London) in 1905. The artist was French but it is unclear if the work was created in the UK (most of the paintings from the book were shown in London where the book's compiler/author saw them, and this one is not mentioned in the text chapter by a Frenchman). But in either case (work created in London or work created in Paris) I will assume French law holds due to her citizenship. However, for an artwork that is selected for an illustrated catalog (such as in this book), I would assume that an exhibition itself is the moment of "publishing". That is the moment when the original work comes in contact with public eyes, or is the moment of "publishing" for an artwork the year of creation? In this specific case we are talking about an artwork photographed and published in a book, probably before or after a London exhibition. So you need to spell out for me what you mean by "published in any form" because I don't get that. Thanks again for the quick reply! --Jane023 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Modern copyright in the UK is generally dated back to the Statute of Anne in 1705, it gets a mention in the U.S. Constitution (1787), and even the Berne Convention dates back to 1886, so you have to go quite a long way back to find things "created before copyright law". (Which may be just as well, because there's a case going through the U.S. courts at the moment relating to sound recordings, examining the proposition that before federalized copyright (only legislated for in the U.S. for sound recordings in 1976), that before/without such a law, the natural default state of affairs was perpetual copyright...) -- which was still the case until quite recently for unpublished works, now the subject of a transitional regime.
The first thing to take into account is that, even with the Berne Convention, there's still only quite a limited internationalisation of copyright law. Each country still has its own copyright law, and (according to Berne), the relevant law will be the law of the place in which it is being claimed the copyright is being broken. So it's not the case that the relevant law is French law, due to Mme Comerre-Paton's French citizenship. Instead, if the content is being downloaded by a U.S. citizen in the U.S. from a U.S. server, the relevant law is likely to be U.S. American law; while if content is being downloaded by a French person in France from a U.S. server, then the plaintiff probably has a choice -- potentially that's an activity going on both in the States where the content is being served, and in France where the content is being received, so there's an arguable possibility of copyright being breached at either end.
U.S. law is very clear -- if something was published before 1923, then U.S. copyright has expired. (There's a possible loophole, if the plaintiff tries to claim that the publication was made unlawfully, without permission; but basically if it was out there before 1923 then it's (pretty) safe to say that the (U.S.) copyright curtain has come down.
For first publication in the E.U. the standard is "Life + 70 years", hence the end of 2025 being the relevant date. Note also that in the case of simultaneous publication (or publication within a month) of a work by an overseas citizen, the "source country" for a work will be that citizen's home country -- ie France, if the book was available simultaneously in Paris, London and New York; and probably (?) the UK if the work was published simultaneously in London and New York by a UK-based publisher.
So, what is "publication" ? This is another can of worms. The classic U.S. position is that a work is published if an arbitrary sufficiently motivated member of the public could take measures to secure themselves a copy of the work. An interesting case is the "Oscar" Academy Award statuette -- the Academy expressly stipulate that recipients do not have the right to sell or dispose of the statuette to anyone other than the Academy, in order that there should be no possibility that a random member of the public should be able to obtain one; and so that they can therefore argue that the design of the statuette is an unpublished work, and therefore still subject to perpetual copyright.
On the other hand, if I remember correctly, one of the 19th century UK acts stipulated that public display was to be considered a form of publication (perhaps because so many people at that time sketched works that were on public display).
I don't know what the position in French law would be; nor am I entirely sure which country's law would be used to determine whether a work had or had not been "published" by exhibiting it in a particular other country at a particular time. This is the kind of muddle that keeps lawyers in shiny offices for years -- and the deeper you get into the detail of this kind of trans-national question, the more that copyright law turns into a complete nest of snakes.
Not really a very clear answer, for which I'm sorry. But you can see why User:Natuur12 is cautious that there may be a good chance that the "source" country of the work, ie its country of first publication as determined according to the law of a country of possible infringement, might quite possibly be France, or alternatively the UK, in either case leading to the work still being in copyright in that source country. So has that successfully made your head spin? Yes, copyright clearance is crazy. And nobody in any position of authority appears to give a damn about trying to make the process any easier. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a 1m by 2m large poster giving a flowchart for calculation whether a work is in or out of copyright in each country of the EU, -- but beware that it is 25 Mb in size! (And even then I am not sure how deeply it gets in to the issue of what is or is not publication, which country's laws should be deemed to be relevant for the purpose, and how that affects the notion of the "source" country for the work).
That's where I need to hand on to some of the real experts on Commons.  :-) Jheald (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Correction. Mere exhibition of a work does not count as publication under UK law. (according to Commons:Publication). So for the UK, the crucial thing would be when and where the first reproductions were first published, ie made generally available (more specifically, whether it was first published in the United States, a clear month before the UK). Exhibition would count as publication under German law (the present German law, anyway). The page doesn't say what the position is under French law. Jheald (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Defecation videoEdit

Hello Natuur12, some time ago you deleted Commons:File:Defecation.ogv after it was nominated by EvergreenFir. The reason given by the nominator was "Out of scope - Video is not used by any project, has no educational value, and is part of an effort by IP editors to add a video of defecation on the en.Wikipedia defecation page, despite clear consensus against it.". The comment you gave with the deletion was "Out of scope.". Can you explain what you mean by that and whether or not you agree with the reasons given by the nominator?
I want to add that the file was in use on other projects, it wss used for already more than six months on the dutch Wikipedia (preceded by another defecation video placed in march 2014) and both videos have not been an issue of much debate there. Moreover, regarding the "no educational value", the video is informative. Most people have never seen the movement of the anus around the bolus. It is impossible to your own defecation without a mirror, and defecation is such a private issue that you never see anybody elses defecation from so nearby. So the video does provide new information. Those who want to see it, can click it. Those who find it disgusting are able to avoid it by not clicking it. Regards, Itsme (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Itsme: Out of scope is just short for there is no educational value or the file violates one of Wikimedia Commons it’s policies. I could have motivated this more clearly.
While the educational value is questionable since the quality of the video isn’t that good the person in it was clearly recognisable and we have no way to establish if this person agreed with the publication of this video or if this video is just some sick joke between drunk “friends”. In most jurisdictions this would be a breach of personality rights if there is no consent to publish such a video. Evidence is required that this video meets com:IDENT. Therefor the file has to be deleted. The uploader seems to have used a single purpose account which hasn’t been used ever since.
Secondly there is the copyright aspect. Video’s like this are uploaded every now and then and often we find out that the uploader isn’t the copyright holder. Often someone else than the actual camera men, photographer etc. uploaded it and this comes close to having significant doubt (com:PCP) about the copyright status. While the evidence is too thin to prove that his file is indeed a copyright violation it is in combination with the com:IDENT-argument and the fact that the file is used for vandalism in a way that brings the subject in discretion is strong enough of a reason to delete such a file. Actually, the fact that we have no evidence that the subject gave his consent for this vid is reason enough to delete such a file.
Regards, Natuur12 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, clear. Valid arguments. Thanks for clarifying the deletion. Itsme (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You can see a lot of defecation videos of other animals on You Tube like cat, cow, dog, horse, elephant, rhino, etc. Norbert zeescouts (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Spaanse ID-kaartEdit

Hoi, kun je mij verklaren, hoe ik de nieuwste Spaanse ID-Kaart (van 2015, beeld van PRADO) kan uploaden in Commons? De oude kaart van 2006 is geen probleem, zo waarom deze nieuwen? André Devecserii (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ik heb geen idee hoe de oude kaart eruit ziet maar het ontwerp van deze keer was in ieder geval complex genoeg om een eigen auteursrecht te hebben. Daarnaast was kaart overgenomen van een externe bron. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

deleted too soon?Edit

Hello Natuur12, carried away by my enthusiasm I closed some DRs opened at the 2015/10/27 exemple here, before I realized they were not old 7 days. All were opened by INeverCry and I've no doubt that the files would have been deleted after one week if I did not deleted its myself. I hope it will not have too serious consequences.... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry. Stuff like this can happen. Seems like it where obvious cases anyways. I doubt that there will be any consequences since it was just a honest mistake. If someone does complain about a specific DR you can always restore the files and reopen the DR. Thanks for closing so many DR's btw. We need more admins dealing with deletion requests :). Natuur12 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It is only those who do nothing that make no mistakes and it's by making mistake that we learn...I will be more careful, good evening :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

COA of the Earl Lloyd-George of DwyforEdit

Hi Natuur12 - I note your recent deletion of the Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor's coat of arms. I have put in another place various comments about the recent deletions of my uploads, which significantly have all arrived in frequent recent succession. Whether or not my word is worth anything on Wiki Commons, let me simply point out to you that the image I posted on Wiki Commons has every right to be there. If you need chapter and verse as to why, I should be more than happy to provide it. I await your comments. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. why has there been no reply on my Talk Page so far (I want to help)?

Hi, sorry for the late reply. It seems that Clindenberg has this one covered. He explained this better than I ever could. Natuur12 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Natuur12 - thanks to you too & please see Carl Lindberg's Talk page for chapter & verse on heraldic representation. Best M Mabelina (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
many apologies - properly The Earl Lloyd-George (hyphenated) but Lloyd George as a surname for the sake of good order. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 23:18, 05 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed deletion request which may need to be renominatedEdit

Hello. Earlier this year you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ana Ambrazienė.jpg as kept. The nominator, User:JuTa, stated "I can't find an external source to doubt own work as claimed". There were no other comments for or against deletion. Today I found that it appears to have been copied from this Facebook image dated June 2011. The deletion nomination link says to contact the closing administrator before re-nominating it. -- Zyxw (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

JuTa deleted the file based upon this new evidence. Nothing left to do for me. Natuur12 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


english:I dont speak well english but i want to know why you deleted a collages made by me whom was made with photos from wikimedia commons. All the photos from commons are free licence.

spanish:Te lo escribo en espanol tambien, lengua que manejo mas facil. Hice unos colajes para los condados de Rumania con fotos de wikimedia commons, que estaban bajo licencia libre. Porque me los habias borrado?--Bogdan Muraru (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bogdan Muraru,
I will find someone who speaks Spanish to explain to you why the files have been deleted and what you could do to prevent deletion in the future. @Alan:, @Jcb:, @Magog the Ogre: can one of you explain the deletion rational in Spanish? The files in question were deleted because they are collages of freely licensed files but they lacked attribution and a source. Natuur12 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bogdan Muraru: dijiste que las imágenes provienen de Commons, pero nunca proveíste la fuente. Si puedes dar la fuente, estoy bastante seguro que Natuur12 las restaurará. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Básicamente nada que añadir a lo dicho por Magog, indícale a Natuur12 las fuentes/orígenes de las fotos y seguro que si son válidas las restaura. Si necesitas ayuda con el idioma, añade en tu respuesta {{ping|Alan}} y me saldrá un aviso para pasarme y ayudaros en español. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • A mi esto me parece una estupidez, entonces vamos a dudar sobre absolutamente totas las fotos subidas en wikimedia commons. Hasta que no has encontrado en otra parte estas fotos o tienes alguna prueba que me incrimine no deberias podrar borrarlos. A mi me ofende que me llamas infractor y actuais como tal frente de mi trabajo. Para volver a buscar todas las imagines in commons me harra perder mucho tiempo, he mostrado en 2 casos la veridicidad de mis palabras (File:Colaj Botoşani.jpg y File:Suceava Colaj.jpg) y pensaba que esto era suficiente. Y si todas las fotos del colaje fuesen de mi computadora, tomadas de mi, como hubiera podido mostrar mi inocencia? cual eran las fuentes que hubiera podido enseñaros? Yo no soy un usuario nuevo y conozco las condiciones de subir archivo.

File:Prefectura_Veche_Bt.jpg, File:Mănăstirea_Popăuţi6.jpg, File:Monumentul răscoalei din 1907 din Flămânzi.jpg, File:Conacul_Miclescu_din_Calinesti2.jpg, File:Primăria Dorohoi.jpg, File:Nymphaea on the lake1.jpg

File:Vatra_Dornei_partie.jpg, File:Primaria_din_Vatra_Dornei3.jpg, File:Monastere Voronet.jpg (en este caso es dificil identificarla hay docenas de fotos casi iguales en commons), File:Templul_evreiesc_din_Radauti4.jpg, File:Cetatea_de_Scaun_a_Sucevei9.jpg, File:Manastirea_Dragomirna2.jpg, File:Falticeni_-_Muzeul_Apelor_Mihai_Bacescu_(6).jpg

File:Catedrala_b.jpg, File:Castel Hemeiuş.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Onesti.jpg, File:Ajuntament de Târgu Ocna.jpg, File:Slănic Moldova.jpg, File:Palatul Ghica front view.jpg, File:Monumentul-Muzeu Măgura Ocnei.JPG--Bogdan Muraru (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Recomiendo leer la siguiente norma de Wikimedia Commons: Principio de precaución. No es una estupidez, citar la fuente es un requisito obligatorio de las licencias Creative Commons. Alan (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ahora, despues de mostrar los fuentes de los colajes por que no habeis restaurado las fotos?--Bogdan Muraru (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bogdan Muraru: No avanzarás tu causa por ser polémico con la gente que trata de ayudarte.
Natuur12, the sources are immediately above; could you please restore? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done and I will reclose the DR's after the source(s) is/are updated. Natuur12 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and explainingEdit

Hi Natuur, thank you for cleaning up a little mess I made. I clicked "needs permission" not realizing that (a) the kind of permission that means here is not model permission, and (b) I would not have a chance to review what action was being taken in my name before it was enacted. I had meant to return and clean up what I did, but you got to it first -- thank you. My original intent (as I stated in the DR) was to get it into a queue where it would be treated as a "speedy" request, rather than sitting in a DR and attracting more views (exactly what the subject appears to object to) for another week or so. If you are able to simply delete it now, I think that would be best. But it's up to you, I'm not planning on taking any further action on that, given my poor track record on it today :) -Pete F (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I already stated my opinion in the deletion request. While I can agree with a speedy deletion I consider it bad practice to delete files when I participated in the discussion in favour of deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Understood -- a wise practice. -Pete F (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish pronunciation of AlbaniaEdit

I wonder what you meant by writing “In use” on the discussion page for deleting this file. Did you mean that the pronunciation was in use? Well, it may indeed be in use, but it is nevertheless incorrect. Lots of errors are used in every single language, but it does not make them correct. And if you referred to the file being in use, then this can hardly justificate keeping it, because the various versions of the Wiktionary may use it in good faith and mislead potential readers. All in all, it would be nice if you could employ full sentences when you wish to discuss anything. — At any rate the file is best to be deleted, as are all links leading to it. The least one should do is to mark this pronunciation clearly as incorrect. —— If you wish to answer, please do so on my Wiktionary page. Ksymil (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ksymil,
I only motivate my admin actions at Wikimedia Commons. The files is used in other articles and it is up to the local projects to decide if they want to use the file or not even if the file is incorrect. This is how Wikimedia Commons works and sometimes it sucks but please realise that if don't follow this line Commons will be a place where content disputes from other projects are setteled. Feel free to tagg is as incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for keeping this file. I'm glad somebody was able to see the deletionists' fishing expedition for what it was. Illegitimate Barrister 12:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Natuur12 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reason for a recent deletion?Edit

Hi, yesterday on November 8 2015, 22:51, you deleted over 50 files for the reason of copyright violation. To be clear, I don't doubt that at least a few if not all of these files WERE copyright violations, I just would like to see the grounds for the deletion. Could you provide me a link me to the discussion? Or did all these images just not follow the attribution guidelines to the point, so that copyright violation was merely assumed, not factual? Thanks for clearing this up for me. --Enyavar (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Enyavar,
Those files where nominated for speedy deletion by various users. The violation is always assumed since you can't say for a hundred percent sure that a file is indeed a copyright violation. (There is always a slim change that a file is actuelly okay) Some files have been deleted because they where published elswhere before being uploaded to Commons, had a watermark that indicated that the files are the work of a coörperation, one was a album cover etc. If you have questions about a specific deletion please let me know. The deletion of those files was in line with Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion unless I made a mistake. Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Natuur, thanks for your quick reply. The files which are of interest for me are the following about indian politicians. Since I was neither the author nor the uploader of any of the files, I'm afraid I won't be able to provide certainty about a possible nonviolation even if you were to restore them. However, I'm interested in who nominated the images for speedy deletion, which reason was given (a complaint by the copyright holder is certainly a valid reason; deletion simply for the slightest possibility of a violation would be rather sad). Thanks a lot.
Since I don't know the attribution for the said files, I can no longer check if probably template:PD-India is applicable, since the photographs were published before the date limit. --Enyavar (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those three are certainly in the category suspected copyright violation but I can restore them for a regular DR if you want so that you can do some double checking. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that would be great. If they have still to be deleted then, I can't complain ;) --Enyavar (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fajjuify. Natuur12 (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again. I inserted the Template:PD-India into the articles instead of the previous copyright templates, but am not certain if that proceeding and my reasoning in the linked DR is indeed correct. What's your opinion?
Also, um... yeah, the quality of all three images is actually poorer than I remembered, an original upload/replacement in better resolution and without the recoloring would greatly improve the files. But that's a different matter, I just say that I wouldn't be THAT sad if the images wind up getting deleted again. --Enyavar (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I will state my opinion later but I am not sure if India is the source country since India didn't excist back than meaning that the work was published in the UK. The PD-India template seems to be incorrect since photographs wheren't free 50 years after creation but it was life + 50. I do hope that I am wrong about this. Natuur12 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
well, I made an error, as the works are of persons from Pakistan, not India, my bad. However, both templates cite the same law in that matter: works before the respective independence fall under the British Copyright Act of 1911; a "creation+50" copyright seems to apply. --Enyavar (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent and repeated deletion: request for help and advices !Edit

Hi Natuur12, I'm the owner of an image which has been deleteded several times for falacious denunciations of Copyright Violation, which is totally false ! However, I'm the author and creator of this image, owner of all rights on it, and I can prove it at any moment (including by modifying again this image/diagramm or providing you the source of this basic drawing (in XML or whatever format you prefer)). My question is: What should I do exactly to make my image accepted in Wikimedia Commons, now ? Could you help me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilti99 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 09 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much for your help and advices. Regards, Hilti99 --Hilti99 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Hilti99,
In cases like this it is up to you to provide that you are the copyright holder. You can do so by contacting the OTRS-team. For more information please see com:OTRS. If you follow the instructions described at that page the OTRS-team will restore the files if everything sorts out. Please be aware that it can take a couple of weeks before someone looks into your case. Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Natuur12 for your answer. Moreover because you are the one who have deleted my image ! I will try to follow your advice by filing a request at the page of the OTRS-team, but I must admit it's seems a bit complicated about my simple story ! But I will try ! Incredible to see how complex it is so difficult to simply publish a basic image I own on Wikimedia Commons ! Awsome ! Best regards. --Hilti99 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Weeks ! ("Please be aware that it can take a couple of weeks before someone looks into your case."). Only to insert a basic picture never clamed by any other person ? (just an anonymous and malicious user who try to tell the world that this picture has been "stolen" without any proof ? Nobody clame the ownership of this image exept me, because I am the only owner and creator (and I can prove it at any moment ! I can create new version of this imagr just on demand ! ). Weeks... Just incredible ! PS: I have aleady filled a ticket [Ticket#: 2015110910023722] just to sse if takes "weeks" on Wikimedia ! --Hilti99 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Those files have been published elswhere so you will have to follow the procedure as described at com:OTRS. Those are the rules. Since eveything is run by a handfull volunteers who do this in their free time it can take a while. And yes, a lot of people commit copyfroud so the good have to suffer. The situation isn't ideal but if you have an alternative feel free to present it at com:VP. Current backlogg is 17 days. Natuur12 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What do I need to do to use my organisation's logo ?Edit

You deleted the Rowing Ireland logo. There is no copyrite on the logo and it is used with the permission of the organisation. Can you advise what steps I need to take to be able to resubmit the logo ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran.kerr (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, why do you believe that this logo isn't copyrighted? If we have covered that I can advice you which steps to take. Natuur12 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Because I am a Director of the Organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran.kerr (talk • contribs) 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, in that case you will have to contact the OTRS-team. Please follow the instructions listed at com:OTRS but before you do so it is advisable to ask for some legal advice first since there may be some unwanted side effects when releasing a logo. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks


Hello Natuur12, just a little question, when I withdraw a DR that I began, can I close it myself as kept or must I wait? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, unless there are others who want the file to be deleted I see no harm in closing it as kept if you withdraw it. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I always have a doubt, can you take a look and say your opinion please?, the file are here since 2 years, they were out of scope (personal artworks), however they are now in a book and rather notable, I didn't find previous publications of these files on the WEB, I feel rather lucky than an artist publish here his work in first before to become quite notable, do you think an OTRS permission is needed? Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Msriposte --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is needed. We had them first. Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cool, thanks, I really think the uploader is the artist and a history buff, and that we are lucky he gave his files. I don't want to take the risk to lose the file by procedures not done nor to afraid (discourage) the artist. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

deleted imageEdit

You deleted an image by Ella Guru here:,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg

on the basis there was no statement of permission. The page has gone now, but I believe there was a link from it to the Stuckism site where permission is given for this image. See:

A similar situation applies to other Guru images e.g.,_The_Bride.jpg

There are two links given. The second is to Guru's site (as stated on your deletion page for the Crisp image) but the first is to the Stuckism GFDL page giving permission, ie.

Summary from permission =

See this page for a lot of images released under GFDL:

This situation has arisen before. See higher up on the same wikipedia page where the Crisp image warning was posted for more examples of images that were threatened with removal from wikipedia:

Also higher up on that page is a deleted image Perry.jpg which I believe refers to another Guru image "Grayson Perry" also released under GFDL at the bottom of this page.

Perhaps someone could make a note of all this somewhere so that this situation does not keep on occurring.

The problem seems to be that there are two links under the image on the wikipedia page. The second goes to the artist's site (where there is no permission given) but the first goes to the Stuckism site (the group which the artist belongs to) where the permission is given. Administrators on wikipedia seem to see the second link but not notice the first link.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs)

Dear Seestucksite,
I did notice the link but the problem is that the link states the following: GFDL applies to this file only, not the original image.. You can't release just release the low res version of a file and not the high res version but if you believe I was to stricky you are free to ask for a second opinion at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you should follow official policy as at this page:

Gold seal policy v4.svg This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons.

It says:

"It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure if the policy is correct and the addition seems to be quite recent. (That's probably why I missed the update since it was discussed in a VP instead of using a RFC and I don't remember seeing a notice at an administrators noticeboard). Before this update closures could either be delete or kept. Depending on how the deleting admin interprets com:PCP. I can't stand behind this policy change and I think there was not enough consensus to implement it. I would have just left the DR for someone else if I knew about this change but I will not undelete them. Please make your request at com:UNDEL or just ask any other admin to restore it but I will not preform admin actions I don't agree with.
And yes, based on this newly provided info you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion but stuff like this can be prevented by adding all the relevant info to the permission field at a file page. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Norman GobbiEdit

I am not sure why you deleted this picture taken from the Swiss Parlament website. It came with a proper license, see for example the portrait of Lisa Mazzone. Thanks. --Lukati (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I missed the licensing update. Perhaps a cash issue? Anyways, it has been restored. Natuur12 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Lukati (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

file:Hedi Schoop, 032.jpgEdit

Why did you delete the file?

I see at this moment that wikimedia is processing the otrs permissions. Whoud dyou please restore this file?--Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the file because you listed someone other than yourself as the author. I found the related OTRS-ticket and processed it. You can add the {{OTRS pending}} template to avoid deletion in future cases. Natuur12 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Natuur12".